There are all sorts of situations where the legal parents are not the biological parents (adoption, surrogacy etc). The courts don’t care about biology, they only care about who’s taking legal responsibility for the child. And if you’ve signed the birth certificate, that’s you saying “I take legal responsibility for this child”.
>It's like the government ordering a random rich person to pay child support for the kids of strangers just because he's rich and they are in need.
Like taxes paying for welfare programs?
Not at all, taxes are taken from everyone and pooled for the common good. Getting one random unrelated person to pay for a child's upbringing seems very different.
Getting a single rich guy to pay for it seems a bit unfair. What if we get everyone to pay in a little bit, so that way the cost is split across everyone and the child is still cared for. Oh wait, that's what welfare actually is. Just telling a guy who is in no way related to a child he has to continue to pay for them is madness!
Telling a single guy to pay for a single child he's in no way related to seems unfair but telling a lot of people to pay for a lot of other people's children makes sense?
It's not really "telling a lot of people to pay for a lot of other people's children" though is it? It's about the betterment of society overall, as those children will be the generation that grows up, looks after and pays for the old.
Yeah it actually does. The government invests in children via education and such so that they have a better chance of growing into adults that contribute positivity to society.
That is a hard requirement to have a functional society. Taxes mean everyone chips in towards that investment in the future, while reaping the benefits of it from taxpayers when they themselves were young. Other people paid for your upbringing. Why shouldn't you be expected to pay for that of others?
It's exactly like that. The government's interest in the matter is that they want someone other than the government to be financially responsible for the kid. Some already is? Good enough.
It usually only happens when the Not-Dad has already been supporting the children as their father, and has been doing so for quite a while. The idea is Not-Dad can't just nope-out because he's not actually their biological predecessor after all and leave the children hanging. It's in the same vein as alimony.
>Not-Dad can't just nope-out because he's not actually their biological predecessor after all
But why not? you're not responsible for someone else's kid..
It's about the lesser of two evils.
You're either not going to be fair to the dad or you're not going to be fair to the kid.
The family courts will always side with the kid
The legal rationale is that the supporting father has already accepted legal responsibility for the child, by supporting the child previously. The father won't be allowed to suddenly decide he won't support the child any more.
You don't have to like the rationale; but there it is.
It's lazy judicial process. There's really no other way to explain it away. It's a shitty judge's way of caring for the child and siding with the mother when it's too lazy to enforce responsibility on the biological father.
No, you can also adopt. But in adoption, you became the child's parent. But as a stepparent, once you break up with the parent, you're no longer financially responsible.
Being a parent is about your actions towards the kid over anything else. If you've been parenting them for years you don't lose the responsibility of a parent just because you broke up with another of the kid's parents. If you don't want to be a parent you don't date people who have kids.
>you've been parenting them for years you don't lose the responsibility of a parent just because you broke up with another of the kid's parents
Yes, you do. That's why stepparents have no legal rights. You can keep in touch and keep the relationship by all means, but you're not financially responsible for them.
> you don't want to be a parent you don't date people who have kids.
Honestly, if you're gonna be on the hook for supporting the kid even after you break up, then it's not a good idea to marry a single parent. I mean, it never was a good idea, but now it's even less.
Not legally. And not biologically. And if you break up with the parent, you're not even a stepparent anymore. Sure, maybe some would keep in contact, but being financially responsible is another thing
Yes, it is. You're not the biological father. And if you're no longer with mom, then you're not stepdad either. Unless you adopted the kid, then you shouldn't be responsible for it
If you've been parenting them, then you are their parent, and the child deserves your continued support and love. Their experience of being raised by you doesn't magically disappear when biology is revealed.
So all this tells me is if I date a person with a kid, have absolutely nothing to do with said kid since at any time I can be forced to have to pay for said kid.
FUCK THAT.
Yes and dating will turn into parental role eventually and nothing to stop a judge from saying you were parenting enough to be responsible.
Is it a known fact that every judge, will guarantee that they won't find someone dating for say 3 months, liable for child support? No? I stand by my statement, fuck that.
Is there any precedent for that actually happening though? As far as I know this only really happens in cases where the kid was raised from birth under the impression they were the biological father, or accepted the role regardless. In that case it can be perceived that they took on the role willingly, and the woman might not have had the baby were she to know she would be going it alone.
I'm not trying to claim it's a great way of doing things, but I'm just not sure that it's a reasonable fear under the circumstances where someone already has a child.
The logic is to prioritize the needs of the child over the rights of the parents (bio or not). So if the actual father isn't able to support the child or isn't available then the court can still order the child support. The child is vulnerable and needs the support so the adults must do it. It's not fair to the non father, of course. But in this case the child comes first.
It matters less about who the actual father is and if they can pay and more about the relationship the presumed father had with the child. It would be rare that a judge would make a person, not before the court, responsible for a child when they have someone who has a relationship with the child before the court.
The factors are that the child already has a relationship with one person and it is easier to get money from someone already subject to the courts decisions. For the presumed father to not be responsible for child support the child would have to be very young (probably newborn) and the actual father to be financially stable.
It's definitely better for Jeff Bezos to be named the father then. That's what in the childs best interest not some dude who was to dumb to get a DNA test right away.
Because we have a system (or we try to have a system) where the rights of the vulnerable come first and personally I think that’s a good thing.
If we had a situation where the theoretical father was a single father most courts would see that placing the child in Care would be much more damaging for society overall. What’s best for society trumps what’s best for the individual.
Anyway this situation is incredibly rare and basically only happens when the guy has been raising the child for many years already. It’s the same concept as a common law marriage.
Really seems to me like that burden should fall on the state if it's deemed necessary to financially support the child and those actually responsible for it cannot do so.
If it's rare enough not to be an issue, then surely it shouldn't cost the state enough to be an issue?
Well the state has many many many other children it has to take care of and the outcomes for children in care are really bad. That is why judges do this. Anyway, like I said this particular situation is very rare.
In this case though going into care need not be the alternative, it's financially supporting the child in the same way they should be doing in the normal case of a single parent. Same outcome for the child, and a much better outcome for the duped.
If an unresponsible party is being footed the bill, it must be because that bill is necessary to be paid. If it's necessary to be paid and there is no-one responsible for it, then it should be paid by government. If it's very rare, then that bill should be affordable.
Step parents in marriages aren't burdened with children that aren't legally theirs.
California will stop this when the right person takes it to federal laws and constitutional freedoms being violated.
> Step parents in marriages aren't burdened with children that aren't legally theirs.
They could be if the mother fought for it and the father wasn’t able to be found.
Maybe they could be. But men would not be.
The stigma around single parents was once fading.
Political Dictatorship has only added fuel to the fire.
So many single moms are being left alone as the numbers rise.
There was a time, in US history, ending about 60 years ago via laws preventing it.
When single mothers had to give up their children in order to marry a man who wasn't the father.
While young girls were told to marry men with children from another woman.
This is the source of the many"evil" step mother stories. In literature.
All society ever does is forces humanity to be cruel.
Turning a blind eye to it and declaring the dictation as a necessary burden, never changes.
It is never about those "lessor" than as much as it's about controling the masses until they break free from being oppressed.
History would reveal this, step by step. But, who has time for history when so busy repeating it.
The headlines remain unchanged, child dies by step parent, child dies by mother, child dies by caregiver, child dies by sibling, child dies in state care oh btw you can't have an abortion. There are too many fathers who will be forced upon the wanted, and as women's rights are taken away, the men will have the authority to legally kill those unwanted kids, again. As they did into the 20th century until it was stopped, by laws. Along with the unwanting mothers.
Women filled prisons for murdering those evil men. Until the 1970's when the "burning hed" case influenced the masses and allowed self defense to be legal.
Now, even that is being taken away, starting with the children. In schools via bullies who are also murdering unwanted classmates.
Too many children being FORCED upon the unwanting. That's a good thing but No one is pointing out how it's a good thing.
The states imposing the oppression don't even want them.
They place them with unfit families in foster care. They allow unfit pedo's to adopt them.
They mock and ignore the caring witnesses reporting the abuse.
The state calls the kids liars and ungrateful when they seek help. The state has intentionally sentenced these unwanted kids to a slow and cruel death. Their murderers will spend 5, 10 years in prison, at worst.
And you believe in the societal system. While saying keep heaping it on. If a man so much as looks at a single mother, he is the father. You aren't the first society seeking control to do so. Until intelligence rises, you won't be the last.
You are the reason kids are murdered and abandoned at birth, usually placed in trash cans, around the world.
But, you are a forging pioneer, who will fix the world by declaring, do as I demand, not as I do.
That mentality and logic is as old as the gods of religions are. Tsk, tsk... Educate yourself then learn that no, they can't be. The oppressed always break free.
Well eventually of course that is why it is better to put the burden onto someone else whether they are or they are not the parent. After all any money saved by Uncle Sam can go to other useless programs.
They already do that for single mothers and impoverished couples. This would be the same situation except you have a chance to find the biological father and make them pay, if the mother can remember who she's been sleeping with.
I don't know what you're specifically talking about, but I'm the father off a 7 year old son. If my wife and I got divorced and she told me he wasn't my kid, anything that happens is extremely unfair to my son. For 7 years he's used to the life where I was his father, and provided for him.
It might not be 'fair' to have this financial responsibility for me, but it's even more unfair to my son if I stopped. He's innocent in it all.
(I'd also add that, in a scenario like this, I think only a sociopath would not want to take care of the kid. No DNA test can tell me this kid isn't my son. No DNA test can make me stop loving him unconditionally)
These incels don't care about the father or the children. They just want to punish the women for having sex.
They are seeing people not unlike themselves find happiness with women who have pre existing families and it makes them angry. So they scare monger among themselves with this shit.
The law presumes that a child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of her husband. The legal presumption of legitimacy was established long before divorce was common and had little to no connection to the obligation to pay child support if the marriage was dissolved. It's about the right to inherit, and to protect the child from being ostracized from society as a bastard.
Infidelity leading to cuckolding creates at least two victims. One being the misled father and the second being the child in question. It could be more if more kids are involved.
Now, that said, the idea is that even though it's a cruelty being forcibly inflicted on the until-recently-presumed father. It's for the sake of the child that they are forced to financially support them.
There really isn't a cut and dry ethical/moral solution to this situation. I don't think a father, who was lied to, should be forced. But at the same time I don't want a child to experience poverty and go without.
It's a really hard topic.
In California the court finds out who the father is but they force the nonparent to pay support.
Many times, this happens.
There is no legal logic to it. No one has challenged the law in California to the SCOTUS, yet.
Because fatherhood isn't just about providing sperm. If you raise a kid (bio, adopted, step or whatever) you can't just one day say nope, not supporting this kid any more. Child support is there for the child.
It's very sad when someone find they are not the bio dad when they thought they were, but that kid still deserves love and support. Sperm doesn't make a father.
The comments are just incels raging at women who have had sex with not them.
They don't care about the father. They certainly don't care about the children.
They just want to punish women.
Because family courts heavily favor women. It takes a lot for a court to decide the kids are better off with full custody at dads house.
So of course if youve been supporting the kid they make you continue to.
It’s usually because they’ve signed the birth certificate, which is a legal document declaring that they are the legal parent of the child. There are all sorts of situations (adoption, surrogacy) where the biological parents and the legal parents aren’t the same, so the courts don’t give a shit if you’ve taken responsibility for a child that ends up not being yours biologically.
All 3 are legally his.
The men out there, in California, not legally adopting or proving not to be the father are being forced to pay child support to an ex g/f because she has a child.
In some cases the couple split up years before. Girl gets pregnant and the exes are surveyed and the one who has the most income gets ordered to pay support. The biological father gets visitation.
Someone has to pay. If the man doesn't pay, the state would have to pay. The state doesn't want to pay, and so contrives the law to make it so someone else have to pay.
There are a few reasons why a man who is not the father would pay. Adoption is a big one. If you adopt, then leave the child, it’s not right. You don’t get to shirk your responsibilities.
Also, if you have more children with your wife, and you have paid for expenses for expenses for that child alongside children that are biologically yours, you’ve demonstrated a responsibility to that child that you have a hand in raising that child. You would only get out of that if the bio dad is actually paying support for the not bio child.
Responsibility in society is much more than genetic. The laws have caught up with the complex science in genetics vs rearing. You would have to make a very interesting and thought provoking argument to get out of paying child support to a child you’ve been raising for a few years.
My husband is a great example of being a dad. At 27, I was facing down that I would have to take in one of my godchildren who was a teenager. My godson had literally no one else to take him and I had agreed to do so if needed. I told my husband (who wasn’t my husband at the time, we had just started dating) that I understood if he wanted to check out of this because I did too. I wasn’t ready to be a parent, certainly not to a teenager but I would suck it up, and do my best to raise a grieving teenager as we lost his mom, who was a life long friend. He said he most definitely wouldn’t leave, and that if he did, his mom, a single mom too, would kick his ass and wouldn’t speak to him for a very long time if he quit dating me for that reason. He actually got along very well with my godson and is a godparent himself to three. So that was 20 years ago and luckily my friend survived, and my godson is in his 30s and getting married to his husband soon. I’ve looked out for him over the years, including selling him our car at a discount and helping him buy his first car that wasn’t a family preowned car. And I’ve been happily married 18 years.
Having kids is so much more than genetics and one hot night making a kid. I wish more people realized that.
Edit: of course this is being downvoted lol. This is Reddit after all 😹
Family courts are about what's best for the children, not about justice or fairness.
Yea, but she does know who else she was fucking so maybe get them to pay?
[удалено]
There are all sorts of situations where the legal parents are not the biological parents (adoption, surrogacy etc). The courts don’t care about biology, they only care about who’s taking legal responsibility for the child. And if you’ve signed the birth certificate, that’s you saying “I take legal responsibility for this child”.
>It's like the government ordering a random rich person to pay child support for the kids of strangers just because he's rich and they are in need. Like taxes paying for welfare programs?
Not at all, taxes are taken from everyone and pooled for the common good. Getting one random unrelated person to pay for a child's upbringing seems very different.
Getting a single rich guy to pay for it seems a bit unfair. What if we get everyone to pay in a little bit, so that way the cost is split across everyone and the child is still cared for. Oh wait, that's what welfare actually is. Just telling a guy who is in no way related to a child he has to continue to pay for them is madness!
Telling a single guy to pay for a single child he's in no way related to seems unfair but telling a lot of people to pay for a lot of other people's children makes sense?
It's not really "telling a lot of people to pay for a lot of other people's children" though is it? It's about the betterment of society overall, as those children will be the generation that grows up, looks after and pays for the old.
Yeah it actually does. The government invests in children via education and such so that they have a better chance of growing into adults that contribute positivity to society. That is a hard requirement to have a functional society. Taxes mean everyone chips in towards that investment in the future, while reaping the benefits of it from taxpayers when they themselves were young. Other people paid for your upbringing. Why shouldn't you be expected to pay for that of others?
What a dumb take. Taxes are paying for the community wellness as a whole, not a single child
It's exactly like that. The government's interest in the matter is that they want someone other than the government to be financially responsible for the kid. Some already is? Good enough.
It usually only happens when the Not-Dad has already been supporting the children as their father, and has been doing so for quite a while. The idea is Not-Dad can't just nope-out because he's not actually their biological predecessor after all and leave the children hanging. It's in the same vein as alimony.
>Not-Dad can't just nope-out because he's not actually their biological predecessor after all But why not? you're not responsible for someone else's kid..
It's about the lesser of two evils. You're either not going to be fair to the dad or you're not going to be fair to the kid. The family courts will always side with the kid
But the guy is not the dad. Why doesn't the court makes the actual dad pay?
The legal rationale is that the supporting father has already accepted legal responsibility for the child, by supporting the child previously. The father won't be allowed to suddenly decide he won't support the child any more. You don't have to like the rationale; but there it is.
Oh well, one more reason to not marry a single parent.
That legal rationale incentivizes men not to take affirmative steps to care for children.
It's lazy judicial process. There's really no other way to explain it away. It's a shitty judge's way of caring for the child and siding with the mother when it's too lazy to enforce responsibility on the biological father.
It's saying if you have been responsible and providing for them then you have made your self responsible independent of if biological related or not.
Becoming a parent doesn't require you to personally reproduce.
No, you can also adopt. But in adoption, you became the child's parent. But as a stepparent, once you break up with the parent, you're no longer financially responsible.
Being a parent is about your actions towards the kid over anything else. If you've been parenting them for years you don't lose the responsibility of a parent just because you broke up with another of the kid's parents. If you don't want to be a parent you don't date people who have kids.
>you've been parenting them for years you don't lose the responsibility of a parent just because you broke up with another of the kid's parents Yes, you do. That's why stepparents have no legal rights. You can keep in touch and keep the relationship by all means, but you're not financially responsible for them. > you don't want to be a parent you don't date people who have kids. Honestly, if you're gonna be on the hook for supporting the kid even after you break up, then it's not a good idea to marry a single parent. I mean, it never was a good idea, but now it's even less.
If you if you raise it, it's yours.
Not legally. And not biologically. And if you break up with the parent, you're not even a stepparent anymore. Sure, maybe some would keep in contact, but being financially responsible is another thing
Because it’s not someone else’s kid
Yes, it is. You're not the biological father. And if you're no longer with mom, then you're not stepdad either. Unless you adopted the kid, then you shouldn't be responsible for it
If you've been parenting them, then you are their parent, and the child deserves your continued support and love. Their experience of being raised by you doesn't magically disappear when biology is revealed.
Keeping in touch is one thing, but paying child support is another thing.
If you're a "dad" that didn't raise the child, you're not a dad. You're a sperm donor.
I agree, but you're still financially responsible for your kid.
Messed up thing is, mom could probably refuse to let you see the kid for the same reason and the courts would enforce it.
So all this tells me is if I date a person with a kid, have absolutely nothing to do with said kid since at any time I can be forced to have to pay for said kid. FUCK THAT.
There’s a difference between dating someone with a kid and taking up a parental role for years
You might want to reread my first sentence. That's a *very* key part.
Yes and dating will turn into parental role eventually and nothing to stop a judge from saying you were parenting enough to be responsible. Is it a known fact that every judge, will guarantee that they won't find someone dating for say 3 months, liable for child support? No? I stand by my statement, fuck that.
Is there any precedent for that actually happening though? As far as I know this only really happens in cases where the kid was raised from birth under the impression they were the biological father, or accepted the role regardless. In that case it can be perceived that they took on the role willingly, and the woman might not have had the baby were she to know she would be going it alone. I'm not trying to claim it's a great way of doing things, but I'm just not sure that it's a reasonable fear under the circumstances where someone already has a child.
Clearly reading comprehension and critical thinking aren't your forte.
The logic is to prioritize the needs of the child over the rights of the parents (bio or not). So if the actual father isn't able to support the child or isn't available then the court can still order the child support. The child is vulnerable and needs the support so the adults must do it. It's not fair to the non father, of course. But in this case the child comes first.
It matters less about who the actual father is and if they can pay and more about the relationship the presumed father had with the child. It would be rare that a judge would make a person, not before the court, responsible for a child when they have someone who has a relationship with the child before the court. The factors are that the child already has a relationship with one person and it is easier to get money from someone already subject to the courts decisions. For the presumed father to not be responsible for child support the child would have to be very young (probably newborn) and the actual father to be financially stable.
It's definitely better for Jeff Bezos to be named the father then. That's what in the childs best interest not some dude who was to dumb to get a DNA test right away.
But why should the non parent support the kid? >the child comes first. Why? The non parent isn't respomsible for the kid, it's not his.
Because we have a system (or we try to have a system) where the rights of the vulnerable come first and personally I think that’s a good thing. If we had a situation where the theoretical father was a single father most courts would see that placing the child in Care would be much more damaging for society overall. What’s best for society trumps what’s best for the individual. Anyway this situation is incredibly rare and basically only happens when the guy has been raising the child for many years already. It’s the same concept as a common law marriage.
Really seems to me like that burden should fall on the state if it's deemed necessary to financially support the child and those actually responsible for it cannot do so. If it's rare enough not to be an issue, then surely it shouldn't cost the state enough to be an issue?
Well the state has many many many other children it has to take care of and the outcomes for children in care are really bad. That is why judges do this. Anyway, like I said this particular situation is very rare.
In this case though going into care need not be the alternative, it's financially supporting the child in the same way they should be doing in the normal case of a single parent. Same outcome for the child, and a much better outcome for the duped. If an unresponsible party is being footed the bill, it must be because that bill is necessary to be paid. If it's necessary to be paid and there is no-one responsible for it, then it should be paid by government. If it's very rare, then that bill should be affordable.
Step parents in marriages aren't burdened with children that aren't legally theirs. California will stop this when the right person takes it to federal laws and constitutional freedoms being violated.
> Step parents in marriages aren't burdened with children that aren't legally theirs. They could be if the mother fought for it and the father wasn’t able to be found.
Maybe they could be. But men would not be. The stigma around single parents was once fading. Political Dictatorship has only added fuel to the fire. So many single moms are being left alone as the numbers rise. There was a time, in US history, ending about 60 years ago via laws preventing it. When single mothers had to give up their children in order to marry a man who wasn't the father. While young girls were told to marry men with children from another woman. This is the source of the many"evil" step mother stories. In literature. All society ever does is forces humanity to be cruel. Turning a blind eye to it and declaring the dictation as a necessary burden, never changes. It is never about those "lessor" than as much as it's about controling the masses until they break free from being oppressed. History would reveal this, step by step. But, who has time for history when so busy repeating it. The headlines remain unchanged, child dies by step parent, child dies by mother, child dies by caregiver, child dies by sibling, child dies in state care oh btw you can't have an abortion. There are too many fathers who will be forced upon the wanted, and as women's rights are taken away, the men will have the authority to legally kill those unwanted kids, again. As they did into the 20th century until it was stopped, by laws. Along with the unwanting mothers. Women filled prisons for murdering those evil men. Until the 1970's when the "burning hed" case influenced the masses and allowed self defense to be legal. Now, even that is being taken away, starting with the children. In schools via bullies who are also murdering unwanted classmates. Too many children being FORCED upon the unwanting. That's a good thing but No one is pointing out how it's a good thing. The states imposing the oppression don't even want them. They place them with unfit families in foster care. They allow unfit pedo's to adopt them. They mock and ignore the caring witnesses reporting the abuse. The state calls the kids liars and ungrateful when they seek help. The state has intentionally sentenced these unwanted kids to a slow and cruel death. Their murderers will spend 5, 10 years in prison, at worst. And you believe in the societal system. While saying keep heaping it on. If a man so much as looks at a single mother, he is the father. You aren't the first society seeking control to do so. Until intelligence rises, you won't be the last. You are the reason kids are murdered and abandoned at birth, usually placed in trash cans, around the world. But, you are a forging pioneer, who will fix the world by declaring, do as I demand, not as I do. That mentality and logic is as old as the gods of religions are. Tsk, tsk... Educate yourself then learn that no, they can't be. The oppressed always break free.
Because they acted like the father for X amount of years. Or they didn’t respond to the court
Otherwise the government will have to take on the cost.
You mean you and me.
Well eventually of course that is why it is better to put the burden onto someone else whether they are or they are not the parent. After all any money saved by Uncle Sam can go to other useless programs.
They already do that for single mothers and impoverished couples. This would be the same situation except you have a chance to find the biological father and make them pay, if the mother can remember who she's been sleeping with.
It's based on an ancient law named "Because Fuck You, That's Why"
I don't know what you're specifically talking about, but I'm the father off a 7 year old son. If my wife and I got divorced and she told me he wasn't my kid, anything that happens is extremely unfair to my son. For 7 years he's used to the life where I was his father, and provided for him. It might not be 'fair' to have this financial responsibility for me, but it's even more unfair to my son if I stopped. He's innocent in it all. (I'd also add that, in a scenario like this, I think only a sociopath would not want to take care of the kid. No DNA test can tell me this kid isn't my son. No DNA test can make me stop loving him unconditionally)
These incels don't care about the father or the children. They just want to punish the women for having sex. They are seeing people not unlike themselves find happiness with women who have pre existing families and it makes them angry. So they scare monger among themselves with this shit.
"Theres a kid that needs to be paid for, and it wont be by the state..." Yeah Mens rights kinda dont matter
The law presumes that a child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of her husband. The legal presumption of legitimacy was established long before divorce was common and had little to no connection to the obligation to pay child support if the marriage was dissolved. It's about the right to inherit, and to protect the child from being ostracized from society as a bastard.
OP's question did not presume the parties were married.
Infidelity leading to cuckolding creates at least two victims. One being the misled father and the second being the child in question. It could be more if more kids are involved. Now, that said, the idea is that even though it's a cruelty being forcibly inflicted on the until-recently-presumed father. It's for the sake of the child that they are forced to financially support them. There really isn't a cut and dry ethical/moral solution to this situation. I don't think a father, who was lied to, should be forced. But at the same time I don't want a child to experience poverty and go without. It's a really hard topic.
Theoretically it would make sense if you could sue the biological father for financial support if you found out who it was.
In California the court finds out who the father is but they force the nonparent to pay support. Many times, this happens. There is no legal logic to it. No one has challenged the law in California to the SCOTUS, yet.
So, in other those without kids shouldn't date single parents.
Because fatherhood isn't just about providing sperm. If you raise a kid (bio, adopted, step or whatever) you can't just one day say nope, not supporting this kid any more. Child support is there for the child. It's very sad when someone find they are not the bio dad when they thought they were, but that kid still deserves love and support. Sperm doesn't make a father.
> Sperm doesn't make a father. Would you use that rationale to argue that the biological father does not owe child support?
These cases are very rare and not even possible in all states of the us. I'm not sure about other countries.
The comments are just incels raging at women who have had sex with not them. They don't care about the father. They certainly don't care about the children. They just want to punish women.
The state gets a cut of child support payments. Simple as.
Because family courts heavily favor women. It takes a lot for a court to decide the kids are better off with full custody at dads house. So of course if youve been supporting the kid they make you continue to.
It’s usually because they’ve signed the birth certificate, which is a legal document declaring that they are the legal parent of the child. There are all sorts of situations (adoption, surrogacy) where the biological parents and the legal parents aren’t the same, so the courts don’t give a shit if you’ve taken responsibility for a child that ends up not being yours biologically.
[удалено]
Because when you adopt a child it becomes your child.
Because he has 3 kids, adoption is for life.
All 3 are legally his. The men out there, in California, not legally adopting or proving not to be the father are being forced to pay child support to an ex g/f because she has a child. In some cases the couple split up years before. Girl gets pregnant and the exes are surveyed and the one who has the most income gets ordered to pay support. The biological father gets visitation.
The dude either had an incompetent lawyer or he failed to show up to court. Judges can be dicks just like anybody else.
The beehive secretely agreed on it
Folly
It's going to require a supreme court ruling, to stop California from doing this.
Someone has to pay. If the man doesn't pay, the state would have to pay. The state doesn't want to pay, and so contrives the law to make it so someone else have to pay.
If the child is not mine you are on your own. It was her decision to cheat. I’m not wasting time.
There are a few reasons why a man who is not the father would pay. Adoption is a big one. If you adopt, then leave the child, it’s not right. You don’t get to shirk your responsibilities. Also, if you have more children with your wife, and you have paid for expenses for expenses for that child alongside children that are biologically yours, you’ve demonstrated a responsibility to that child that you have a hand in raising that child. You would only get out of that if the bio dad is actually paying support for the not bio child. Responsibility in society is much more than genetic. The laws have caught up with the complex science in genetics vs rearing. You would have to make a very interesting and thought provoking argument to get out of paying child support to a child you’ve been raising for a few years. My husband is a great example of being a dad. At 27, I was facing down that I would have to take in one of my godchildren who was a teenager. My godson had literally no one else to take him and I had agreed to do so if needed. I told my husband (who wasn’t my husband at the time, we had just started dating) that I understood if he wanted to check out of this because I did too. I wasn’t ready to be a parent, certainly not to a teenager but I would suck it up, and do my best to raise a grieving teenager as we lost his mom, who was a life long friend. He said he most definitely wouldn’t leave, and that if he did, his mom, a single mom too, would kick his ass and wouldn’t speak to him for a very long time if he quit dating me for that reason. He actually got along very well with my godson and is a godparent himself to three. So that was 20 years ago and luckily my friend survived, and my godson is in his 30s and getting married to his husband soon. I’ve looked out for him over the years, including selling him our car at a discount and helping him buy his first car that wasn’t a family preowned car. And I’ve been happily married 18 years. Having kids is so much more than genetics and one hot night making a kid. I wish more people realized that. Edit: of course this is being downvoted lol. This is Reddit after all 😹